Gun Rights: Should we have guns?
Debate Rounds (5)
Citizens will not have guns.
Criminals will have guns.
Which makes criminals all the more dangerous. You see, laws do not affect law breakers. I mean, if someone breaks into your house trying to murder you, you can't just call 911 at gunpoint!
http://www.gunpolicy.org...) to see that under the various tabs we have access to the Gun Homicides and Suicide Homicides by Gun under Death and Injury. The total for the first has dropped from an average of about 40 to 11 in 2008 and 47 gun suicides since 1999 with 7 accidental deaths since 1999 as well. For all the citizens the number of privately owned firearms is 710,000. What does this all mean? Well Japan has an extremely low crime rate (http://www.nationmaster.com...) which leads one to believe that the argument that guns are the core of protection is faulty on at least one leg.
Second let's look at the good ole U.S. of A (http://www.cdc.gov...) the CDC provides with an interesting factor telling us that the firearm rate of death is far higher:
[ All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 32,351
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.4 ]
That is an astoundingly high number however breaking it down does not make it look better with 3,800 people accidently dying from a discharged firearm in the home (http://nyagv.org...) in 5 years relative to 2005-2010. Considering the whole document as it is only filled with facts and figures at the time of it's writing, "rather than being used for self-defense, guns in the home are 22 times more likely to be involved in accidental shootings, homicides, or suicide attempts. For every one time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.", was statistically wholesome and is backed by other agencies such as The FBI (http://www.fbi.gov...) relating to close to the same time period without a major shift. The reality is that firearms are more used against people than to defend them with:
["The carping back and forth gets pretty technical, but the brief version is that Hemenway believes Kleck includes too many "false positives": respondents who claim they"ve chased off burglars or rapists with guns but probably are boasting or, worse, categorizing unlawful aggressive conduct as legitimate DGU. Hemenway finds more reliable an annual federal government research project, called the National Crime Victimization Survey, which yields estimates in the neighborhood of 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Making various reasonable-sounding adjustments, other social scientists have suggested that perhaps a figure somewhere between 250,000 and 370,000 might be more accurate.(http://www.businessweek.com...)", and it is a common myth that guns protect citizens.
So then looking back at a previous article's concept how many potential firearms does the average American, despite rarely using them for self-defense as shown above, come across? (http://www.washingtonpost.com...) The US has 88% gun ownership, which is the highest on the planet at the time of printing on 12/2012 and it has a comparative rate of gun deaths just under countries that are known to be drug cartel hotspots? I would propose that this suggests that instead of guns keeping people safe and sound they do nothing of the sort. Not a single piece of information seems to even suggest that this is the case.
According to your first source: http://www.gunpolicy.org..., I also looked up many other countries and saw that their policies are mostly the same, yet crime rates, according to your other source: http://www.nationmaster.com..., differ greatly. Canada has a high crime rate, yet has the same amount of gun control as Japan. It depends on the country and the people in the country. In this argument, statistics prove very fallible and thus cannot be used in this argument. We can debate through sheer logic.
So, I need to know, do you agree that if we take away guns, citizens will not have protection?
And, do you agree that, if we take away guns, criminals will still break laws?
Do you agree that, if we make guns illegal, criminals will still have guns because of their habit to possess illegal things?
"This means the criminals will still have guns, but more importantly, the people will not have guns. They will not have protection. If a gun law stating there are to be no guns is passed, here's what's going to happen:
Citizens will not have guns.
Criminals will have guns."
With you being so many times more likely to shoot yourself than anyone even breaking into your house let alone you being the active defender it is hard to justify the statements regarding protection so if one decides to even bother going that route as grounds they need some form of evidence to show that it's realistic and thus far it is absolutely not. The concept presented is fearmongering: "The Criminals will have guns!" is hardly a frightening concept when it isn't the weapons themselves that cause the behaviors. You've shown this and done part of the work for me.
You are correct that Canada has a very different crime rate with about the same type of controls which means that it is the national mindset not the placement nor the law or liberty that dictates the crime rates, or so I am lead to believe, which in turn brings the question of "Should" even under more scrutiny; if the violence and crime rate are not tied directly to the firearm laws and the firearms themselves are endangering the citizenry and not promoting the safety of the citizenry what exactly is the value of having the firearms? You have shown it pointless because first and foremost crime is a matter of mentality (http://world.time.com...) not availability for protection so the real underlying problem is not relative to protection in the least.
So to answer your questions:
"So, I need to know, do you agree that if we take away guns, citizens will not have protection?", absolutely not. This is false worldwide with again America being 33% points higher than any other country (Yemen was second last I checked) in firearm ownership and still maintained one of the highest gun accident rates, one of the highest gun crime rates, and one of the highest fatal shooting rates as cited before this. The question here is how exactly is the citizen receiving protection when the numbers are showing the direct opposite?
"And, do you agree that, if we take away guns, criminals will still break laws?", this is a complex question. First it is by definition a requirement that a criminal break the law, so that's just not an intelligible question to begin with, no different than asking if I agree that unmarried men will still be bachelors; second the question doesn't address a very interesting concept which is whether crime itself will go down without firearms available. The answer to that shifts across the world and again is relative less to the actual availability of weapons and more towards the mentality but this brings into view one more question which is "Is crime easier to commit?" because:
"An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal."
"However a key finding is that "the illegal market is the most likely source" for these people to obtain a gun. "In fact, more than half the arrestees say it is easy to obtain guns illegally," the report states. Responding to a question of how they obtained their most recent handgun, the arrestees answered as follows: 56% said they paid cash; 15% said it was a gift; 10% said they borrowed it; 8% said they traded for it; while 5% only said that they stole it."
So looking at the matter entirely with strawman purchases and corrupt fully legal salesmen just selling them illegally now we have a different prospective altogether. Those precious firearms that are sold legally to "protect you" which don't are now the major source for those firearms that end up in the hands of the criminals you're declaring a defense against! Is that anything but ironic? It's like being sold medicine by the doctors who are poisoning the water supply in the first place! It's frightening when you think about it because instead of asking pointless questions when we ask questions of how the criminals acquire the weapons to begin with (not looking at the fact that almost all mass shooting weapons were bought completely legally and not stolen at all with zero corruption involved) it's within the very system that you seek to defend.
"Do you agree that, if we make guns illegal, criminals will still have guns because of their habit to possess illegal things?", which leads to this. No. Not they won't. Without the major sources for firearms to be acquired most criminals that have firearms won't have firearms anymore. It's again like cleaning up the water, getting rid of the quack doctor who was poisoning it in the first place, and then protecting the water source. Will guns still exist? Good question, the answer is yes, of course, and will the violent mentality of the nation still exist? Absolutely. But will all the guns in circulation end up in evil hands? No. Why not? There is no circulation. The entire pulse of the system is based on the legality of the weapon itself; the very protection you seek is used against you every day in a system that makes it far too easy to make it happen.
Should people have the right to own firearms? No, not really. No. Why not? Because statistically speaking throughout the whole situation nothing good comes of it. The criminals arm themselves within the system sometimes completely legally, the amount of accidents is ridiculous, the actual usage of weapons in defense is astoundingly low, the number of gun-related homicides is incredibly high, and looking at the statistics of weapon violence firearms seem to be tied to making crimes more likely because the bearer of the firearm believes they have an advantage and the greatest (or saddest) proof of this is the actual rate of weapon use in crimes (http://www.bjs.gov...). Not a single table dips firearms beneath any other type of weapon; the reality is that being far enough away with a squeeze of a trigger is sufficient to give mankind the bravery he requires to perform extremely dangerous acts.
I have yet to see a good reason to allow this otherwise.
"With you being so many times more likely to shoot yourself than anyone even breaking into your house let alone you being the active defender it is hard to justify the statements regarding protection so if one decides to even bother going that route as grounds they need some form of evidence to show that it's realistic and thus far it is absolutely not."
Okay, I have to object to this and point out the inconsistency of your logic. If statistics show that you are more likely to shoot yourself than defend yourself, let me pose a question for you. Do you think a suicidal person would not kill themselves just because they did not have access to a gun? Let me remind you: There is more than one way to skin a cat. So, the issue of a suicidal having access to guns is solved. There would be no gap in the amount of suicides if we were to take guns away. Therefore, I rephrase your argument into "With you being more likely to jump off a bridge than anyone even breaking into your house let alone you being the active defender it is hard to justify the statements regarding protection." As you can see, jumping off a bridge has nothing to do with guns. Even then, an innocent human life was saved when someone decided to own a gun and defended themselves with that gun. You may not value that human life, but I do.
The criminals will have guns. We will not. This is a frightening concept when you consider that gun crimes usually result in more fatalities than knife crimes. And so, even though the criminal did it, the gun allowed more damage to be done.
So, as I was saying, even though the criminal is the one who commits the crime, the gun allows it to be done. And, even though not many people use guns for protection, the few that do would be dead if they did not have guns, and yet the criminals would still have guns.
And I do not see how criminals breaking laws is that hard to believe, much less a complex question that requires a paragraph of an answer. Regardless, I should think a crime is easier to commit when you know the victim is unarmed. And, do you think that if guns were to become illegal criminals would stop trying to get guns? It is far easier for a person to obtain a legal gun than an illegal gun. But, if it came down to where guns would be illegal, I have reason to believe criminals would get guns somehow if they really wanted to.
And also, you do understand that if guns become illegal, criminals will still have access to guns. If the gun they possess is legal, they can always get another one through the black market.
"Okay, I have to object to this and point out the inconsistency of your logic. If statistics show that you are more likely to shoot yourself than defend yourself, let me pose a question for you. Do you think a suicidal person would not kill themselves just because they did not have access to a gun?", actually as it turns out (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...) no! Impulsive suicide is much, much higher with access to firearms than not! So while it wasn't my intention at all you've also shown that for those who are mentally unstable whether it be depression or something more serious access to firearms is generally a high risk factor in suicide (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...).
"Let me remind you: There is more than one way to skin a cat. So, the issue of a suicidal having access to guns is solved.", indeed it is; you see the numbers I cited for deaths relative to the firearms were actually accidental. That means that there were no suicides accounted for. You point out suicide so getting numbers on that is possible but I don't think that would help your case and honestly from the information above it's been shown that it's all the worse now.
"There would be no gap in the amount of suicides if we were to take guns away.", and this is a claim you have to statistically prove. Just like violence and crime suicidality changes in the world based on mentality; Japan for instance and other Eastern countries have pretty high suicide rates but an entirely different culture related to suicide while countries that don't have much suicide despite their standing as impoverished have different values. To that end I don't see how you could measure this in the United States despite looking at the numbers and facts above and seeing that a vast amount (majority) of suicides involve firearms.
"Therefore, I rephrase your argument...", do not do that.
"The criminals will have guns. We will not. This is a frightening concept when you consider that gun crimes usually result in more fatalities than knife crimes. And so, even though the criminal did it, the gun allowed more damage to be done.", this is fearmongering behavior and emotional but it doesn't matter because nothing you've said actually backs this up. I just showed that most criminals get firearms through some form of legal chain meaning that whether it's a straw purchase or a gift or even legally buying the weapon to perform a first-offender activity you find yourself at greater risk. That's just numerically and statistically true and it is that way just about worldwide with only 9 countries, as shown prior, outdoing America for gun related murders and crimes.
To be blunt there is no bad guy with a gun waiting for your rights to be taken away. He doesn't exist. It is a complete myth built off of fear but as you said, "No, this is not a matter of what I think and what you think, but a debate of logic.", so I ask to you: Why do you keep appealing to emotion?
"And I do not see how criminals breaking laws is that hard to believe, much less a complex question that requires a paragraph of an answer.", it's a pointless statement. In order to be a criminal you have to break the law so saying "Criminals break the law" is not an argument, it's a stated definition, and using a definition to propose that there is some meaning behind that is faulty. It's misleading. It's why I used the example "Unmarried men are bachelors", or X|X, particularly because it's not intelligible.
"Regardless, I should think a crime is easier to commit when you know the victim is unarmed.", but as you said it's not about what you think. The problem with this is that it sounds logical, but it isn't, the factors that go into crime are rarely as simple as "does he have a gun?" (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...) We've studied this for years and years because we wanted to know as well if such a thing were true and it turns out it's not. Since most criminals attack people they know whether it be petty thievery or something grievous like rape and murder your defense against these people is already low to begin with. It is difficult to do more than show this overwhelming amount of psychological information and statistical data that has been consistent for over a decade showing that none of this is actually true.
"And also, you do understand that if guns become illegal, criminals will still have access to guns. If the gun they possess is legal, they can always get another one through the black market.", this is ambiguous. First is the question of whether the gun exchange goes down or not; as shown above there is no need for this insane "black market" at current so the concept that petty criminals will suddenly slip into this black marketplace and get access to incredible caches is farfetched and there's no sound reasoning behind it. There's no data that suggests this. I mean even the countries with the lowest gun crime and the tightest controls and the best mentality for those controls have gun crime, so obviously there will be gun crime, but the notion that it will somehow maintain itself and there will be a super-wave of criminals reaching out and grabbing magazines by the ton just seems less and less likely as we look at the data and really analyze it.
I know it seems rude but functionally this comes down to two words: "Prove it." You've no sources. You've nothing but your own opinion and it's just not congruent to reality.
Criminals will always have guns.
Civillians will not have guns to protect themselves, and the few civillians that do protect themselves will be killed or abused because you said "the majority dosen't: so who cares?"
http://www.theacru.org... This is a Harvard study that shows the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths is completely irrelivant. The study also shows how, in places with high gun control, the overall murder rate is MUCH, much higher.
Scottsdale, Arizona is ranked one of the top cities with the lowest crime rate, and get this: It has almost NO gun control.
"Scottsdale, AZ tops our list mainly due to the low number of violent crimes."- http://www.areavibes.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Plano, TX is also a top ranking in the top 10 cities with lowest crime rate. And: It has little to no gun laws! Suprise, suprise!
Third on the list is Virginia. You will see that here, as crime rate goes up, so do gun laws, little by little.
So, really, as long as we exist, guns will too. And we will never be rid of them. But these statistics show that towns with no gun laws are generally safer than ones with gun laws.
That is the conclusion from the study itself that was linked in the article you posted 2007.
However we are talking about one country, not the world at large, and when that is taken into account here are twenty four articles that show you completely wrong (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...) but we already covered the above concept because I spoke specifically on (and showed prior to this) the relationship between the countries mentality relative to concepts like criminal behavior and the actual outcome (thus why the US has a very high murder rating by firearm and Switzerland has a very low murder rating by firearm even though proliferation is about the same relative to "gun control" laws) relative to the data.
Correlation does not equal causation for gun laws as being more objective looking at the top ten list you grabbed Scottsdale, AZ has a population of 226,918 and Piano, TX 274,409 which is accounted for by looking at how we statistically manage crime per population (http://theipti.org...) and the likelihood is actually that the towns are simply smaller and if you look at all of the numbers through this "complicated algorithm" for the towns you will find few of them have more than 300,000 people and the three that do including the most populace of San Jose with almost 1m people have more gun control (http://www.sanjoseinside.com...) not less. So the question falls to what the actual correlation is because it's not gun control and I'm willing to bet it is exactly what I brought up earlier which was culture. The places that have the lowest crime rates are either on the barely crossing 200,000 population line or have cultures of a more laid back state such as Hawaii where crime in general is low (http://ag.hawaii.gov...).
You have yet to show that there really is anything to the concept relative to criminality and firearms. You've shown that mentality is the prevalent factor in crimes and violence in general, which I said, so we agree, but that doesn't help provide that firearms should be mandated and instead actually provides that firearms should be banned and that the culture should be rehabilitated.
PoliticalNuts forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.